This copy is for your personal non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies of Toronto Star content for distribution to colleagues, clients or customers, or inquire about permissions/licensing, please go to: www.TorontoStarReprints.com

SIU and the thin blue line

Star article said Toronto police do not always co-operate with Ian Scott and his Special Investigations Unit. (Colin McConnell / Toronto Star) | Order this photo

Sat., July 14, 2012

Re: No right to criticize police, Letter July 8

David Bruser and Jesse McLean’s exposé on the silence of the thin blue line during SIU investigations in and of itself is not news. But the compelling hard research data they compiled to back it up hits the mark.

Mark Pugash, the apologist for Toronto Police Service, seems to view the motto “To Serve and Protect” as a shield of silence invoked by police officers to protect them from unwanted scrutiny while serving the public.

And like a schoolyard bully who wields power by having his friends back him up he throws out the challenge, “If you don’t like it change it,” knowing full well that it is next to impossible because he has the support of the rank and file, the union, the administration and the mayor behind him. And the police action regarding recent events in Toronto including G20 has tempered the public’s appetite for any display of protest especially if it is aimed at the police.

This tension has been long standing and, to paraphrase a line from the movie Misery, “It is this kind of attitude that has kept the edge on our relationship all these years.”

Article Continued Below

Police officers enjoy special status not afforded regular citizens. The fact that they then claim regular citizen status and hide behind the law with impunity when questioned about their police actions doesn’t make it right. It only brings into question their integrity of that of the force.

I hope the public takes up Pugash’s challenge and when the law gets changed maybe the motto of the police force could also be changed to “Lead By Example.”

Frank Feeley, Fonthill

What a terrible mistake to equate a Canadian’s right against self-incrimination with the privilege of being a member of the police service.

We trust members of the police to walk among us armed; we expect them to. We are compelled to stand by and watch as they inflict great harm and even death on our fellow citizens. We must trust that when they do so they are protecting us. We can demand that when called to account that they provide a full, fair and honest record.

Suppose we asked a teacher: Have you abused that child? And suppose that teacher refuses to answer. Do you want that teacher still in a position of authority over children? You may have a right “not to answer” without having a right to be a teacher.

If an officer will not co-operate with the SIU, then that officer cannot be convicted of a crime for maintaining his silence — that’s the officer’s right as a Canadian. But someone entrusted with life and death power who will not speak to justify his actions no longer deserves our trust and should simply not be a member of the police service.

How sad that someone speaking for the police service could confuse the privilege of being a member with the legal rights that we afford even to criminals.

Keith Bellairs, Guelph

Toronto police spokesperson Mark Pugash writes that the Star has no right to criticize police for exercising their Charter rights. On the basis of that logic, since section 2(b) of the Charter guarantees freedom of the press, he presumably has no right to criticize the Star. In either case, I doubt that the courts would agree.

Fred Fletcher, Toronto

Let me understand the view of Toronto Police Service’s Mark Pugash that those obligated to enforce the law are exempt from answering for their conduct if they feel they may be criticized or criminal charges may result?

This is a most ill-considered comment from someone representing our police.

Guy L. Poppe, Aurora

Pugash sounds a little angry about a recent article the Star ran recently. Frankly I don’t blame him, given the Star’s ongoing agenda of publishing anything that can cast police in a negative light, and particularly the Toronto force.

How refreshing it would be to read stories that promote good police work. I’m sure that if your reporters delve deep enough (as they do for negative items), they would discover many examples to feature.

If your present trend continues, I fear that it will have a lasting morale problem for the Toronto force and as a result may very well come back to haunt you. Toronto is fortunate to have a good police force. Let’s keep it that way.

Harland Wittick, Toronto

Mark Pugash seems to be hypocritical in his letter.

If I were to be stopped walking on the street, asked for identification, and I refused, which is my right under the same Charter he refers to, the officer would find a reason to haul me in, citing obstruction or other trumped up charge.

If a person is to ask for legal counsel before answering any questions, the police automatically assume the person to be guilty. An officer who is rightly doing his job by arresting an off duty officer for DUI is harassed by his co-workers. So please Mr. Pugash don’t give us this “holier than thou” attitude.

This paper has shown time and again the police believe they are above the law and if an officer refuses to co-operate in an investigation, the people of this city will assume they have something to hide.

Bruce Katkin, Brampton

While all public institutions must be open to public scrutiny, the Star’s obsession with the police is at times embarrassing — and I don’t mean for the police.

This front page article, which in essence stated that some police officers do nothing more than what is their legal and constitutional right to do, was astonishing. So what if some police officers chose to exercise their right to silence, it’s their right, it’s guaranteed.

If the SIU or anyone else for that matter wants to charge a police officer with a crime, then they have a duty to obtain enough evidence to lay information under oath. While this may sound incredible to some people, police officers who find themselves under investigation are awarded the same right as everybody else and that includes the right not to incriminate yourself.

Rod Perrin, Mississauga

Surprisingly, as one who over the last several years has come to believe that, in Ontario, the terms “police officer” and “civil rights” are often mutually exclusive, I find myself in complete agreement with Mark Pugash. Indeed, let us change the law.

As an ordinary citizen, if I witness a crime, I can be subpoenaed and, under threat of contempt of court and purjury statutes, can be compelled to testify in court. The same should be true of cops.

Further, both a cop’s notes, and his/her observations are work product, and as such, belong to the employer, i.e, the taxpayer. Refusal to fully co-operate with an investigation should be grounds for immediate dismissal from the force, if not criminal charges.

Jim Conchie, Toronto

I take great exception to the letter by Mark Pugash of the Toronto Police Services stating the those who criticize the police for not co-operating with the SIU are hypocritical.

If I am a witness to an incident that involves a police investigation, am I not expected to provide whatever information I have to the police? And if I am called to testify in court, am I not expected to answer all questions which are asked of me? And if I refuse to co-operate and/or testify, am I not subject to penalties? Why then, are those who are entrusted to enforce the law, exempt from this obligation?

Yes, I, and the police, are protected by the Charter of Rights against self-incrimination, and there is the rub. If a police officer withholds information, can we then assume that he/she is “guilty” of some offence?

What further rankles me is that the lack of co-operation is being done under the watch of the current chief of police. Chief Bill Blair has called for the co-operation of witnesses to the recent spate of shootings in the city.

How can he expect witnesses to co-operate when his own officers fail to do so? I would like to believe that if the chief ordered his officers to co-operate, they would be obligated to do so.

As Chief Blair should well know, respect goes both ways. If he and his officers do not respect the investigative process, then he cannot expect the public to do it alone.

David L. Shanoff, Toronto

What a surprise. Mark “right-or-wrong-our-officers-are-right” Pugash, Toronto Police spokesman, hides behind the letter of the law in defending his officers’ right to ignore a legally constituted body whose sole purpose is to search for justice.

Yes, Mr. Pugash, you are technically correct, and also correct when inferring that the law granting officers this right should be changed. But, until it is, Toronto police should do as many other officers in Ontario regularly do and co-operate fully with the SIU.

The blue wall of silence must disappear. The over-riding allegiance to “the brotherhood,” which seemingly trumps all in the eyes of so many officers, must be done away with in favour of allegiance to the community the officers are sworn to protect, and to an allegiance to a transparent search for justice.

Michael Farrell, Oakville

I was disappointed to read another article in the Star that sensationalizes an important issue, and suggests that something untoward is happening, when in fact, an important oversight process is already in place.

First and foremost I want to stress that police officers across the GTA, as well as across Canada, respect the important role civilian oversight plays in the course of our duties. However a police officer does not (and should not) surrender his or her own fundamental and constitutionally protected rights when under investigation by SIU, in the case of Ontario.

These are the same rights enjoyed by every citizen of this country, and I should note that even SIU director Ian Scott himself agrees with this point.

Every day our members respond to violent situations, and put themselves at risk in order to maintain community safety. The men and women who proudly wear the uniform are highly trained and accountable for their actions, and I do not think it’s fair for the Star to allude that police officers exercising their own rights is somehow an affront to justice.

The unfortunate reality in this situation is that it is the unfounded allegations being raised in this story, and the presumptions being made by Director Scott that lead to an environment where police officers feel the need to avail themselves of their own Charter rights.

Under standard procedures, once SIU invokes their mandate, only they have the right to communicate with third parties (such as the media), which often leads to a tainted public perception, and the officer, their service, or their association are legally prevented from defending their actions in the court of public opinion.

Any suggestion that the SIU is hampered in their ability to conduct their investigations by officers who exercise their constitutionally protected rights is ridiculous. Our officers work every day to investigate serious crimes without trampling on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and I believe the oversight bodies that monitor our actions can live within this very same framework.

Tom Stamatakis, President, Canadian Police Association

We’re regularly subjected to police “opinion” regarding many political issues, but when it comes to transparency and the SIU, we tolerate their silence and non-co-operation. Shouldn’t the situation be reversed, or should we just admit our further decline toward a police state?

Doug Williams, Toronto

So almost 40 per cent of officers refuse to testify at SIU investigations. Doesn’t surprise me. Probably the same ones who run around on their trivial pursuit of seatbelt and bike helmet violators thinking that what they are doing is police work.

Give me a break!

John Hart, Mississauga

Delivered dailyThe Morning Headlines Newsletter

The Toronto Star and thestar.com, each property of Toronto Star Newspapers Limited, One Yonge Street, 4th Floor, Toronto, ON, M5E 1E6. You can unsubscribe at any time. Please contact us or see our privacy policy for more information.

More from the Toronto Star & Partners

LOADING

Copyright owned or licensed by Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or distribution of this content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Toronto Star Newspapers Limited and/or its licensors. To order copies of Toronto Star articles, please go to: www.TorontoStarReprints.com